This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found

To: rth at redhat dot com
Subject: Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
From: DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 23:24:50 -0500
CC: zackw at Stanford dot EDU, Kelley dot Cook at home dot com, Cygwin at sources dot redhat dot com, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <200011202245.eAKMjjN27680@plmlir3.mail.eds.com> <20001120154222.O17712@wolery.stanford.edu> <20001120192414.D17317@redhat.com> <20001120193449.Y17712@wolery.stanford.edu> <20001120194446.A17399@redhat.com> <200011210401.XAA10968@envy.delorie.com> <20001120202356.A17461@redhat.com>


> The point being?  There's _still_ no reason it _must_ be done
> in libiberty.

No, but a generic valloc would make sense in libiberty.  If the final
solution includes a generic valloc implementation, it might make more
sense to put that in libiberty rather than gcc.

You're right that it's not a *pressing* reason, but it is something to
consider.

References:
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap found
  - From: Richard Henderson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]